From Freud to Winnicott

The main purpose of this paper is to present a unified view on Winnicott’s contribution to psychoanalysis. Although Winnicott is presently recognized as one of the great figures in the history of psychoanalysis it is evident that a systematic philological, historical and conceptual study of his writings is rare, in spite of some notable exceptions (see Abram 2007, 2008; Davis and Walbridge 1981; Ogden 1986; Phillips 1988). Moreover, we are still waiting for the publication of Winnicott´s Collected Works,² and generally speaking, Winnicott research can hardly be compared with current Freudian scholarship. This situation is changing, particularly in Latin America, where Winnicott has become the most quoted psychoanalytic author after Freud (cf. Abadi and Outeiral 1997). Unfortunately, citation does not necessarily mean that the work is truly studied and understood.